Doe v. Google LLC

Background

The plaintiffs sued Google LLC and YouTube LLC for breach of contract, breach of the implied duty of good faith and fair dealing, and violation of the First Amendment right to freedom of speech. The plaintiffs operated 18 YouTube channels that they described as controversial conservative news channels. YouTube terminated the channels on October 15, 2020, citing multiple violations of its Community Guidelines. The plaintiffs alleged that YouTube removed their channels because of their political viewpoints and sought an order requiring YouTube to restore their content and refrain from removing videos or channels that discussed, analyzed, or mentioned QAnon.

The parties disputed whether YouTube removed the channels before or after YouTube amended its harassment and cyberbullying policy. YouTube stated that the channels contained harmful conspiracy theories and accusations of violent or criminal conduct. The plaintiffs said their content did not violate the policy in effect on or before October 15, 2020.

Legal standard

A temporary restraining order is an extraordinary form of preliminary relief. The requesting party generally must show a likely success on the merits, likely irreparable harm without relief, that the balance of hardships favors an order, and that an order would serve the public interest. Because the plaintiffs sought a mandatory injunction—one requiring YouTube to take action—the court applied the higher requirement that the law and facts clearly favor the plaintiffs’ position.

Court’s analysis

The court concluded that the plaintiffs had not met that requirement. The plaintiffs focused their request on their contract claims and argued that YouTube’s terms allowed suspension or termination only in specified circumstances. Google and YouTube responded that those provisions concerned access to YouTube or Google accounts, while the challenged actions involved suspending the plaintiffs’ channels and removing their videos. They argued that other terms, including provisions concerning content removal, governed the takedown.

After reviewing the terms as a whole, the court agreed that the defendants had plausibly shown that the takedown was authorized by the content-removal provisions. Those provisions stated that YouTube was not required to host content and could remove content if it reasonably believed the content breached the agreement or could cause harm to YouTube, users, or third parties. The court also noted that the parties’ evidence about the timing of the policy amendment was disputed, which independently prevented the plaintiffs from meeting their high burden.

The court rejected, for purposes of the temporary restraining order, the plaintiffs’ argument that YouTube failed to explain why their channels were removed. The plaintiffs’ own declarations showed that YouTube’s notices referred to its harassment and cyberbullying policy. The court stated that the contract did not require the plaintiffs to agree with YouTube’s explanation and that the terms provided an appeal process. The court noted that the plaintiffs did not appear to have used that process.

The plaintiffs conceded at the hearing that they had not established their First Amendment theory in their application. The court therefore did not consider the merits of that theory at that time. Because the plaintiffs had not shown even a fair chance of success on the merits, the court did not analyze the remaining preliminary-relief factors.

Disposition

The court DENIED the plaintiffs’ motion for a temporary restraining order. The order was without prejudice to the plaintiffs’ filing a motion for a preliminary injunction.